Two things shape the course of your life: luck and your decisions (with Annie Duke)

Jun 5, 2024 Episode Page ↗
Overview

Spencer Greenberg and Annie Duke discuss how good decision-making, influenced by probability and magnitude rather than luck, is crucial for individual and societal success. They explore strategies like expected value, avoiding cognitive biases, and the "Monkeys and Pedestals" framework for project management.

At a Glance
20 Insights
1h 25m Duration
18 Topics
10 Concepts

Deep Dive Analysis

The Dual Determinants of Life Outcomes: Luck and Decisions

Critique of Traditional Pro/Con Lists in Decision-Making

Improving Decision Processes: Beyond Simple Lists

Understanding and Applying Expected Value Calculations

When to Deviate from Expected Value: Considering Risk of Ruin

Distinguishing Between Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty

The Importance of Explicit Decision Calculations

Comparing Intuitive vs. Calculated Decision-Making

The Utility and Limitations of Decision Heuristics

Determining Which Decisions Warrant Deeper Analysis

The Paradox: Why Hard Decisions Are Often Easy

Understanding and Avoiding the Resulting Bias

Applying Non-Resulting Principles in Poker

Evaluating Decisions: Skill vs. Luck in Outcomes

The Omission-Commission Bias and Status Quo Preference

Case Study: The California High-Speed Rail and Quitting Bias

Astro Teller's 'Monkeys and Pedestals' Mental Model

The Mission of The Alliance for Decision Education

Expected Value Calculation

This is a weighted average where each possible outcome's payoff (positive or negative) is multiplied by its probability, and these values are summed. It helps determine the average gain or loss from a decision, guiding choices to maximize long-term benefit for repeated small bets.

Aleatory Uncertainty

This type of uncertainty refers to situations where the probabilities of different outcomes are known, but the specific outcome of a single event is unpredictable. An example is a fair coin flip, where you know it's 50/50 for heads or tails, but not which it will be next.

Epistemic Uncertainty

This uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge about the situation itself, including unknown probabilities or even not knowing the full scope of possible outcomes. It means there's 'stuff we don't know,' making precise calculations difficult.

Kelly Criterion

A formula for bet sizing that suggests betting a proportion of one's bankroll equal to one's perceived edge in a favorable gamble. It aims to maximize the long-term growth rate of capital while managing the risk of ruin, though often used in a 'half Kelly' or 'quarter Kelly' approach for more safety.

Heuristics

These are mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that allow for faster decision-making. While generally useful and often accurate in common situations, heuristics can lead to systematic errors or biases when applied to edge cases or complex scenarios.

Sorting and Picking (Decision Making)

Decision-making involves two phases: sorting, which is the heavy lifting of identifying and eliminating bad options to narrow down to a set of 'good enough' choices, and picking, which is the faster process of selecting from that refined set of acceptable options.

Resulting

A cognitive bias where the quality of a decision is judged based solely on its outcome, rather than on the information available and the decision process at the time it was made. This can lead to misattributing good outcomes to skill and bad outcomes to poor decisions, hindering learning.

Omission-Commission Bias

This bias describes the tendency to view losses resulting from inaction (omission, e.g., sticking with the status quo) as less severe or blameworthy than losses resulting from an active choice or deviation (commission). It often makes people more tolerant of negative outcomes if they didn't actively cause them.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

This fallacy is the irrational tendency to continue investing resources (time, money, effort) into a project or decision because of past investments, even when current information suggests that continuing is no longer the best course of action. It prevents people from quitting things they've already put a lot into.

Monkeys and Pedestals

A mental model for project planning, suggesting that in highly uncertain projects, one should always tackle the biggest unknown (the 'monkey') first, rather than building easy, known components (the 'pedestal'). This avoids creating an illusion of progress and prevents sunk cost bias from making it harder to quit a failing project.

?
Why is it important to spend time becoming a better decision-maker?

Improving decision-making is crucial because, alongside luck, the quality of your decisions is one of only two factors determining how your life turns out. Since luck is uncontrollable, focusing on decision quality is the only way to improve outcomes.

?
What are the problems with using pro/con lists for decision-making?

Pro/con lists amplify bias because they are 'flat,' meaning they don't distinguish the magnitude or probability of each item, making them easily manipulated unconsciously to favor a desired outcome. They also lack consideration for the likelihood of each pro or con occurring.

?
When should you deviate from making decisions based purely on expected value calculations?

While most decisions should aim to maximize expected value, deviations are necessary when considering 'risk of ruin' in situations with high volatility or large bets where a single loss could be catastrophic. Bet sizing strategies like the Kelly criterion can help manage this risk.

?
What are the two main types of uncertainty encountered in decision-making?

The two types are aleatory uncertainty (where probabilities are known, but the specific outcome is random, like a coin flip) and epistemic uncertainty (where there's a lack of knowledge about probabilities or the situation itself, including unknown unknowns).

?
Is it self-defeating to try to do explicit expected value calculations in real-life scenarios with high uncertainty?

No, it is always beneficial to try to make expected value calculations explicit, especially for important decisions. Even intuitive decisions involve an implicit forecast, and making it explicit allows for examination, external feedback, and better learning from outcomes.

?
How similar is intuitive decision-making to decision-making based on calculations?

Intuitive decision-making is essentially a poor or inaccurate expected value calculation, heavily influenced by cognitive biases like pattern matching and recency bias. While it aims to choose the best option, it often contains significant error compared to explicit, deliberate calculations.

?
Are heuristics useful in decision-making, or do they always lead to errors?

Heuristics are useful rules of thumb that speed up decision-making and work well most of the time, similar to how our visual system uses distance cues. However, they can break down in 'edge cases' or novel situations, leading to cognitive biases and errors.

?
How can one determine which decisions are significant enough to warrant detailed analysis versus those to make quickly?

The significance of a decision is determined by its 'impact' (how bad a negative outcome would be, long-term) and 'optionality.' Low-impact decisions with quick feedback loops should be made quickly, while high-impact decisions warrant more time and analysis.

?
What makes a decision 'hard,' and what does that imply about the options?

A decision feels 'hard' when there are multiple options that all seem really good. This paradoxically means the decision is actually 'easy,' because the options are so similar in value that you can often just flip a coin without significantly compromising the outcome.

?
What is 'resulting,' and why is it a significant problem in decision-making?

Resulting is judging a decision's quality by its outcome, ignoring the role of luck and available information at the time. It's a big mistake because it causes paralysis from fear of bad outcomes and leads to misallocating future resources by falsely attributing good outcomes to skill or bad outcomes to poor decisions.

?
What is the omission-commission bias, and how does it affect our choices?

The omission-commission bias is our tendency to be more tolerant of losses that result from inaction (omission, e.g., sticking with the status quo) than from an active choice (commission). This bias makes us reluctant to deviate from the status quo, even when a change might lead to better expected outcomes.

?
What is Astro Teller's 'Monkeys and Pedestals' mental model for project planning?

The 'Monkeys and Pedestals' model advises tackling the biggest unknown or bottleneck ('monkey') in a project first, rather than starting with easy, known components ('pedestals'). This prevents creating an illusion of progress, avoids sunk cost fallacy, and helps determine project viability early.

?
What is the core mission of The Alliance for Decision Education?

The Alliance for Decision Education aims to improve individual lives and society by bringing decision education into every K-12 classroom. They believe teaching decision-making skills, probabilistic thinking, and understanding personal values is crucial for students' future success, more so than many traditional subjects.

1. Prioritize Decision Quality

Focus on improving the quality of your decisions, as this is the only factor you can control that significantly determines your life’s outcomes, apart from luck.

2. Calculate Expected Value

For important decisions, explicitly calculate the expected value by multiplying the probability of each outcome by its payoff (positive or negative). This makes your forecasts examinable and improves learning from results.

3. Make Forecasts Explicit

Always make your forecasts about future outcomes explicit, rather than relying on implicit gut feelings. This allows for objective examination, external input, and better feedback loops to improve future decisions.

4. Separate Decision from Outcome

Avoid “resulting” by not judging the quality of a decision solely based on its outcome, as luck significantly influences results. This prevents misattributing success to skill or failure to poor decisions, which can skew future resource allocation.

5. Tackle “Monkeys” First

In projects, identify and address the biggest unknowns or bottlenecks (“monkeys”) before investing in known, easier parts (“pedestals”). This prevents wasting resources and makes it easier to quit if the core challenge is intractable.

6. Avoid Low-Hanging Fruit First

Resist the urge to start projects by tackling “low-hanging fruit” (easy wins). Instead, prioritize solving the most critical, uncertain challenges first to avoid creating sunk costs that make quitting difficult later.

7. Overcome Sunk Cost Fallacy

When deciding whether to continue an endeavor, only consider future costs and benefits, ignoring what has already been invested. This helps avoid throwing good resources after bad and enables timely quitting of failing ventures.

8. Recognize Omission-Commission Bias

Be aware of the bias where losses from inaction (omission) are tolerated more than losses from active choices (commission). This can lead to sticking with suboptimal situations to avoid the perceived greater “loss” of making a change.

9. Quantify Status Quo vs. Change

When contemplating a change versus sticking with the status quo, explicitly calculate the expected value of both options. This objective comparison helps overcome omission-commission bias and reveals if a change offers higher expected value.

10. Use Probability & Magnitude

Go beyond simple pros and cons lists by considering the magnitude and probability of both potential gains and costs for each option. This provides a more accurate understanding of the true weight of each factor.

11. Reject Flat Pros/Cons Lists

Do not rely on simple pros and cons lists for important decisions. They amplify cognitive biases by failing to distinguish the magnitude or probability of different factors, leading to potentially manipulated outcomes.

12. Manage Risk of Ruin

For high-stakes decisions or those with significant volatility, consider the risk of ruin and adjust your strategy (e.g., using a fraction of the Kelly criterion). Maximizing expected value alone might lead to catastrophic losses if you can’t withstand the downside.

13. Decide Quickly on Small Bets

For low-stakes decisions with minimal risk of ruin, make choices quickly once a positive expected value is determined. Avoid paralysis by analysis and save your cognitive energy for more impactful decisions.

14. Employ Sorting and Picking

Structure your decision-making into “sorting” (identifying acceptable options) and “picking” (choosing among the acceptable ones). The picking process should always be fast once options are deemed “good enough.”

15. Tailor Decision Time to Impact

Adjust the time and effort spent on evaluating options based on the decision’s impact and optionality. High-impact decisions warrant more thorough sorting, while low-impact ones should be resolved swiftly.

16. Embrace “Hard Decisions are Easy”

When a decision feels hard because you have multiple equally good options, recognize that the options are likely so similar that a quick choice (even a coin flip) is effective. Overthinking small differences is often unproductive.

17. Review Decisions Without Outcomes

When analyzing past decisions, particularly in a group, discuss the information available and the reasoning before revealing the actual outcome. This practice, common in poker, helps avoid hindsight bias and promotes objective learning.

18. Assess Outcome Informativeness

Understand that a single outcome is highly informative only when skill heavily dominates luck (e.g., chess) or when aggregated over many iterations. Avoid drawing strong conclusions from single outcomes in high-luck scenarios.

19. Recognize Heuristic Breakdowns

Be aware that mental shortcuts (heuristics) can break down in “edge cases” or when real-world conditions differ from those in which the heuristic evolved. This helps identify situations where deeper analysis is needed to avoid errors.

20. Advocate for Decision Education

Support and promote the integration of decision-making education into K-12 curricula, teaching concepts like probability, values, and goal-setting. This foundational skill can significantly improve individual lives and society.

When we think about how our lives turn out, there's only two things that determine how our lives turn out. One is luck, and luck we have absolutely no control over. So you'll hear people say, you know, oh, I make my own luck, but you can't actually make your own luck because luck is an exogenous force that just acts upon you. So there's luck. That's one thing that determines how your life turns out. And then the other is the quality of your decisions. And that's it. Those are the two things.

Annie Duke

When a decision's really hard, that actually means it's easy.

Annie Duke

Resulting is not a small mistake. It's a very big mistake because it impacts how you allocate your resources in the future.

Annie Duke

I'm pretty sure that there's almost no dose of LSD high enough that I could beat Magnus Carlsen to chess.

Annie Duke

The low-hanging fruit, by definition, is a pedestal. You should never attack any low-hanging fruit until you've gone to the top of the tree first, until you know that that top of the tree is available to you.

Annie Duke
$33 billion
Original budget for California High-Speed Rail Proposed in 2010
$9 billion
Bond approved by California voters for High-Speed Rail Part of the original project budget
2020
Original projected completion year for California High-Speed Rail Stated at the project's inception
$7.2 billion
Amount spent on California High-Speed Rail by 2018 Eight years into the project
$88 billion
Revised budget for California High-Speed Rail in 2018 Due to newly recognized mountain range challenges
Over $115 billion
Current revised budget for California High-Speed Rail As of the discussion in the podcast
Around 1%
Interception rate for Pete Carroll's Super Bowl pass play The probability of the specific negative outcome observed
50%
Probability of Marshawn Lynch not scoring on a run play from the 1-yard line Against the Patriots defense in the 2015 Super Bowl
83%
Percentage of people who found 'life-changing questions' valuable Based on five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking
78%
Percentage of people who would recommend 'life-changing questions' to others Based on five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking
88%
Percentage of people who enjoyed answering 'life-changing questions' Based on five scientific studies by Clearer Thinking